Archive for May, 2013

why teens abusing drugs easier?


why teensabusing drugseasier?




Easily Influenced Friend
  Teens still has a soul which unstable and are still looking for identity. So easily                            influenced and participated – along with friends
• Curiosity is high
Teens like to try it – new things, including that can harm him.
• Solidarity Group
Strong sense of solidarity with friends cause it hard to resist the pressure of the group members including drug bid
• Want to Perform Stand
Teens often seek care in the hope looks bold, confident and look different
• Eliminate Tired and stress Sense
Teens often think of drugs can solve the problems faced by





why teensabusing drugseasier?
• Easily Influenced Friend
Teens still has a soul which unstable and are still looking for identity. So easily influenced and participated – along with friends
• Curiosity is high
Teens like to try it – new things, including that can harm him.
• Solidarity Group
Strong sense of solidarity with friends cause it hard to resist the pressure of the group members including drug bid
• Want to Perform Stand
Teens often seek care in the hope looks bold, confident and look different
• Eliminate Tired and stress Sense
Teens often think of drugs can solve the problems faced by
• Desire Revolting
Most teens use drugs as a reaction to the uprising against parental authority




Teens Who are:
• Unable to communicate with parents
• Not be under the supervision of a parent
• low self-control
• Self-confidence and low self-esteem
• Do not want to follow the rules / norms / rules
• Like capturing the thrill
• Associating / live in the neighborhood drug abuse
• Isolated or difficult to adjust to the environment.
• Have a family member of drug abuse
• Low appreciation of spiritual








1 VISUAL MEDIA        
  A. PRINTED MEDIA        
    – Book Easy to get it Can not show an animation,
      Can use to write   sounds, or another effects, so
            make a bored feeling to user.
          Need many book in each study.
    – Newspaper Get up to date an  Too weight to bring everywhere.
        information about News,  Can not shoe sounds, and another
        someone’s profile,etc   effects.
      Easy to get it    
    – Magazine The magazine’s paper have  An Information in magazine not like 
        better qualities than newsaper.   a newspaper. ( just like opinion ).
      Easy to get it Can not show sound and another 
    – Brochure Easy to bring it Just a give a thing information, 
      Just a piece of paper, so did not   not news.
        need money to make it Make room or environment dirty.
    – Leaflet Easy to bring it    
      Easy to make it Can not show an effects make wall
    – Flash Card Can show a picture Can not show an effects 
      Easy to bring it Students who have low mind will be
    – Sentence Strip Need a little time to make it. Can not give time to students to 
      Cheap   think.
    – Wallcart Can help the student to  Make wall be dirty.
        remember about something Can not use in out door.
        because see it everyday.    
      Can be propeties in the room.    
    – Single Picture Can help the imagination to Make bored feeling bacause just see
        grow up.   one pictures.
      The Student more understand Students must make another 
        than see flashcard   sentences if their friend use the 
    – Picture Series Students more internet than just Need many pictures, it means that 
        single picture.   many material to make it.
      Students have many imagibation The classroom my be will noise when 
        to make understanding the   the Students discuss about the
        picture.   pictures.
  C REALIA        
    – Calendar To know date, month in today, Need place to put it.
        tomorrow or past. Will be dirty if the calender use spike
      To remain the homework or     
    – Map / Globe To intriduce the Students the Make noise the classroom when 
        shape of earth.   Students want to see.
      To help the learning which learn  
        about countrys.    
    – Puzzle / Game More interest the student to Make noise classroom
        love the study Need many to do it.
      To entertaint of learning.    
    – Menu To organized the schedule. Need many time to make it.
      To know how many material Must can arrange the schedule.
        which be learn.    
    – Hand Puppet Give a skill to Students to play Need many material to make Puppet
        Puppet. Need special skill.
      To try right and left brain    
    – Overhead Transparancy Essay to operate Not practical, necessary energy 
      Can control students   to write
      No need to change the light It takes good writing is easy to read.
      Easily stored archives Requires some special stationery
2. AUDIO MEDIA        
    – Radio Can hear the sounds Need many tools to make it.
      Give an entertainment. Can not in out door.
    – Tape recorder To meke archieve by sounds. Need many blank cassetes to record.
      To save voice Many cassettes will be difficult to
            keep it.
    – Cassette Player To play something by cassette. Can not use it out door.
      To hear sounds Need many place to save it.
    – CD Player To play cassette Many tools to make it work.
      To hear sounds. Need place to put it.
    – VCD To play compact disk. Need many compact disk
      To see sound, picture and 3D Many tools to make the VCD work.
        pictures from compact disk.    
    – Television Not only sound, but also 3D Can not bring everywhere
        pictures too can we see. Many tools to make it work.
      To hear and see news.    
4. MULTI MEDIA        
    – Computer Assisted Can make many 3D picture with Need many place to put it.
    – Language Learning (call)   more effects can we do.   Need many time to operate it to work.
      To give skills to students to    
        operate it.    

Speech Act Theoryby Joanna Jaworowska·        What is a

Speech Act Theory

by Joanna Jaworowska

§         Speech Acts and Meaning

§         Classification of Speech Acts

§         Are Speech Acts Universal or Culture and Language – Specific?

§        How to Teach Speech Acts?

What is a Speech Act?

            A speech act is a minimal functional unit in human communication. Just as a word  (refusal) is the smallest free form found in language and a morpheme is the smallest unit of language that carries information about meaning (-al in refuse-al makes it a noun), the basic unit of communication is a speech act (the speech act of refusal).


The Meaning of Speech Acts

According to Austin’s theory (1962), what we say has three kinds of meaning:

1.      propositional meaning – the literal meaning of what is said     

  It’s hot in here.

2.      illocutionary meaning – the social function of what is said                           

It’s hot in here’   could be:  

– an indirect request for someone to open the window                                                            

– an indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold                                          

– a complaint implying that someone should know better than to keep the windows closed (expressed emphatically) 

3.      perlocutionary meaning – the effect of what is said 

 ‘It’s hot in here’ could result in someone opening the windows                                              


Classification of Speech Acts

Based on Austin’s (1962), and Searle’s (1969) theory, Cohen ( 1996) identifies five categories of speech acts based on the functions assigned to them.

Representatives Directives Expressives Comissives Declaratives
assertions   suggestions apologies promises decrees
claims requests complaint threats declarations
reports   commands thanks offers  


Speech Act Theory

Speech act theory attempts to explain how speakers use language to accomplish intended actions and how hearers infer intended meaning form what is said.  Although speech act studies are now considered a sub-discipline of cross-cultural pragmatics, they actually take their origin in the philosophy of language.

It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a ‘statement’ can only be to ‘describe’ some state of affairs, or to ‘state some fact’, which it must do either truly or falsely. (…) But now in recent years, many things, which would once have been accepted without question as ‘statements’ by both philosophers and grammarians have been scrutinized with new care. (…) It has come to be commonly held that many utterances which look like statements are either not intended at all, or only intended in part, to record or impart straight forward information about the facts (…). (Austin, 1962, p. 1)

Philosophers like Austin (1962), Grice (1957), and Searle (1965, 1969, 1975) offered basic insight into this new theory of linguistic communication based on the assumption that  “(…) the minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thanking, and so on” (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989, p.2). Austin (1962) defines the performance of uttering words with a consequential purpose as “the performance of a locutionary act, and the study of utterances thus far and in these respects the study of locutions, or of the full units of speech” (p. 69). These units of speech are not tokens of the symbol or word or sentence but rather units of linguistic communication and it is “(…) the production of the token in the performance of the speech act that constitutes the basic unit of linguistic communication” (Searle, 1965, p.136). According to Austin’s theory, these functional units of communication have prepositional or locutionary meaning (the literal meaning of the utterance), illocutionary meaning (the social function of the utterance), and perlocutionary force (the effect produced by the utterance in a given context) (Cohen, 1996, p. 384).


Are Speech Acts Universal or Culture and Language – Specific?

Speech acts have been claimed by some to operate by universal pragmatic principles (Austin, (1962),  Searle (1969, 1975), Brown & Levinson (1978)). Others have shown them to vary in conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and languages (Wong, 1994; Wierzbicka, 1985). Although this debate has generated over three decades of research, only the last 15 years marked a shift from an intuitively based approach to an empirically based one, which “has focused on the perception and production of speech acts by learners of a second or foreign language (in the most cases, English as a second or foreign language, i.e., ESL and EFL) at varying stages of language proficiency and in different social interactions” (Cohen, 1996, p. 385).  Blum Kulka et. al., (1989) argue that there is a strong need to complement theoretical studies of speech acts with empirical studies, based on speech acts produced by native speakers of individual languages in strictly defined contexts.

The illocutionary choices embraced by individual languages reflect what Gumperz (1982) calls “cultural logic” (pp. 182-185). Consider the following passage:

The fact that two speakers whose sentences are quite grammatical can differ radically in their interpretation of each other’s verbal strategies indicates that conversational management does rest on linguistic knowledge. But to find out what that knowledge is we must abandon the existing views of communication which draw a basic distinction between cultural or social knowledge on the one hand and linguistic signaling processes on the other. (pp. 185-186)

Differences in “cultural logic” embodied in individual languages involve the implementation of various linguistic mechanisms.  As numerous studies have shown, these mechanisms are rather culture-specific and may cause breakdowns in inter-ethnic communication. Such communication breakdowns are largely due to a language transfer at the sociocultural level where cultural differences play a part in selecting among the potential strategies for realizing a given speech act. Hence the need to make the instruction of speech acts an instrumental component of every ESL/ EFL curriculum.


Why should ESL Students Learn to Perform Speech Acts?

When second language learners engage in conversations with native speakers, difficulties may arise due to their lack of mastery of the conversational norms involved in the production of speech acts. Such conversational difficulties may in turn cause breakdowns in interethnic communication (Gumperz, 1990). When the nonnative speakers violate speech act realization patterns typically used by native speakers of a target language, they often suffer the perennial risk of inadvertently violating conversational (and politeness) norms thereby forfeiting their claims to being treated by their interactants as social equals (Kasper, 1990, p. 193).

Communication difficulties result when conversationalists do not share the same knowledge of the subtle rules governing conversation. Scarcella (1990) ascribes high frequency of such difficulties to the fact that “nonnative speakers, when conversing, often transfer the conversational rules of their first language into the second” (p. 338). Scarcella provides the following example. (Bracketing indicates interruptions.)

1)    speaker A:     Mary’s invited us to lunch. Do you wanna go?

2)    speaker B:     Sure.     [I’m not busy right now.      [Why not?

3)    speaker A:                  [Good                                [I’ll come by in about thirty minutes

4)    speaker B:     Think  we  oughta  bring        [anything?

5)    speaker A:                                                  [No, but I’ll bring some wine anyway.

  (1990, p. 338)


In this exchange, the native speaker B inaccurately concluded that the nonnative speaker A is rude since like many Americans, he regards interruptions as impolite.

Rather than associate rudeness with A’s linguistic behavior, however, B associates rudeness with A herself. B’s reasoning might be as follows: A interrupts; interruptions are rude; therefore, A is rude. Such reasoning is unfortunate for A, who comes from Iran where interruptions may be associated with friendliness, indicating the conversationalist’s active involvement in the interaction. (Scarcella, 1990, p.338)

Learners who repeatedly experience conversational difficulties tend to cut themselves from speakers of the target community, not only withdrawing from them socially, but psychologically as well (Scarcella, 1990). “’Psychological distance’ or a ‘high filter’ might be related to a number of factors, including culture shock and cultural stress” (Scarcella, 1990, p. 343) All these factors ignite a cycle that eventually hinders second language acquisition.

  1. First, the learners experience conversational difficulties.

  2. Next, they become “clannish”, clinging to their own group.

  3. This limits their interaction with members of the target culture and increases solidarity with their own cultural group.

  4. That, in turn, creates social distance between themselves and the target group.

  5. The end result is that the second language acquisition is hindered since they don’t receive the input necessary for their language development. (Scarcella, 1990, p. 342)


How to Teach Speech Acts?


Cohen (1996) claims that the fact that speech acts reflect somewhat routinized language behavior helps learning in the sense that much of what is said is predictable.  For example, Wolfson & Manes, (1980) have found that adjectives nice or good (e.g., “That’s a nice shirt you’re wearing” or “it was a good talk you gave”) are used almost half the time when complimenting in English and beautiful, pretty, and great make up another 15 percent.

Yet despite the routinized nature of speech acts, there are still various strategies to choose form – depending on the sociocultural context – and often a variety of possible language forms for realizing these strategies, especially in the case of speech acts with four or more possible semantic formulas such as apologies and complaints. Target language learners may tend to respond the way they would in their native language and culture and find that their utterances are not at all appropriate for the target language and culture situation. (Cohen, 1996, p. 408)

At present, there is an increasing number of studies dealing with teaching speech act behavior in an ESL/ EFL classroom. Olshtein and Cohen (1990), for instance, conducted a study of apologies made by EFL learners in Israel who were taught a set of lessons on the strategies used by native English speakers to apologize. They found that situational features can indeed be taught in the foreign language classroom. Whereas before these apology lessons, the nonnative speakers’ apologies differed from the native English speakers’, after instruction, learners selected strategies, which were more native-like.

Scarcella (1990) provides second language instructors with a number of guidelines intended to reduce negative consequences of communication difficulties and increase the learners’ conversational competence through improving their motivation:

  1. Stress the advantages of conversing like a native speaker.

  2. Stress that it is not necessary to converse perfectly to communicate in the second language.

  3. Impress upon learners that they should not be overly concerned with communication difficulties.

  4. Help students accept communication difficulties as normal.

  5. Provide students with information about communication difficulties.

  6. Do not expect students to develop the conversational skills needed to overcome all communication difficulties.

  7. Provide communicative feedback regarding student success in conveying meaning and accomplishing communicative objectives.

  8. Teach students strategies to help them overcome communication difficulties in the real world. (1990, pp. 345-346)


Refusal Studies

Takahashi and Beebe (1987) investigated written refusals by native speakers of English, native speakers of Japanese, Japanese ESL students in the United States, and Japanese EFL students in Japan and found that there was a strong native language influence in the EFL context and negative transfer of negative speech act behavior occurring in the more advanced levels of ESL. The researchers claims that the advanced students had greater facility at speaking English which allowed them to express complex notions in Japanese like ‘being deeply honored’ to receive an invitation.

In another study, Robinson (1991) asked twelve native Japanese-speaking women to respond to a written discourse completion task calling for refusals of requests and invitations in English. He found that there was a sociocultural problem in the respondents’ refusals since Japanese women are brought up to say yes, or at least not to say no and thus the task of refusing was a difficult concept for them.

Yet another refusal study, undertaken by Tickle (1991), looked at pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals made by Japanese speakers in a business setting. Thirty-one Japanese men who all had at least five years of business experience (including a year in the United States) were asked to complete a discourse completion task (DCT) where hypothetical situations varied by turf (customer’s vs. the businessperson’s), relationship (positive, negative), status (higher or lower), and function (refusal to an invitation vs. refusal to a request). The results showed that refusals on a customer’s turf were more direct than those on the businessperson’s turf. They were also more direct when no prior relationship existed between the interlocutors. In refusals to invitation (e.g., to go drinking), lower-status interlocutors expressed more regret toward the higher-status one. In refusals to request (e.g., of co-workers), more negative willingness/ability (e.g., “I can’t”) and empathy occurred. Results of this particular study provided material for cross-cultural programs training American businesspeople to deal more effectively with Japanese clients.


Refusals in the Workplace as a Speech Event

A speech event is an identifiable type of discourse used in a particular speech situation. The speech event of refusing in the workplace can thus be described as the discourse associated with the entire interaction triggered by the speech act of refusal and placed in the work setting. 


S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G. Mnemonic
of the Speech Event 
 “Refusals in the Workplace”

(Adapted from: Meechan & Rees-Miller, 2001)



Sample Analysis

Setting or a locale

             Scene or a situation

Scientific information about where it occurred 
(place, time)

Los Angeles, 5 pm on May 21, 2004

Generic information about the social occasion

Business meeting


Who was there  
 (addressor/ addressee, performer/audience, questioner/answerer)

Addressor – Mr. Robertson, the manager  
Addressee – Doris, employee

Ends                       Outcomes   

                                 a Goals

Purpose of the event 
(exchange of goods, etc…)


Purpose of the participants 
(impart knowledge, minimize price)

Addressor – to request from the employee  
Addressee – to refuse the request

Act sequences

Content and forms particular to its use

Content: refusal to a request that the employee stays in late to finish an important proposal


Tone or mood  



Type of discourse or channel 
(spoken, written, recitation, etc.)


Types of speech 
(dialect, style)

Formal standard business English

Norms                   Interaction


                   a Interpretation

Conventions of the interaction

After addressing the employee, the manager makes a request, the employee says she would love to help, refuses politely and offers to come in early the next day

Normal interpretation

Employee recognizes that the manager’s is a little upset while the manager recognizes that the employee is making an attempt to offer an alternative solution to the problem


Category of event 
(poem, story, conversation)




Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and  apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interactions (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. (1996) Speech Acts. In S.L. McKay, & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383 – 420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 76-87). New York: Routledge. 

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Gumperz, J. (1990). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, and S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language: Series on issues in second language research (pp. 223-238). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14,193-218. 

Meechan, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2001). Language in social sontexts. In W. O’Grady, J.Archibald, M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), Contemporary linguistics: An introduciotn. (Fourth edition). (pp. 537-590). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 

Robinson, M. (1991). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 29-84). (Technical Report; Vol 3). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. 

Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Communication difficulties in second language production, development, and instruction. In R. C. Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language: Series on issues in second language research. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 

Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp.136–154). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. 

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: Am essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York. 

Takanashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In S. Blum-Kulka, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138 – 157). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Tickle, A. L. (1991). Japanese refusals in a business setting. Papers in Applied Linguistics – Michigan, 6(2), 84–108.   

Wierzbicka, A. (1985).  Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English, Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145–178. 

Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics, 13(3), 391–410. 

Wong, S. M. L. (1994). Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite-observations from Chinese, Pragmatics, 4, 491–515.




Good Job!

Great a Teacher?

What makes a great teacher?

Study after study shows the single most important factor determining the quality of the education a child receives is the quality of his teacher.

Related articles

Signs of a poor teacher

These are the warning signs that there may be a problem with your child’s teacher:

  • Your child complains that his teacher singles him out repetitively with negative remarks.
  • The teacher is the last one to arrive in the morning and the first to leave in the afternoon. He doesn’t return phone calls or respond to written communication.
  • Your child rarely brings work home from school.
  • Homework assignments are not returned.
  • The teacher does not send home frequent reports or communications to parents.
  • The teacher exhibits limited knowledge of the subject he is teaching.
  • Lessons lack organization and planning.
  • The teacher refuses to accept any input from parents.


By Great Schools Staff


What makes a great teacher? Teaching is one of the most complicated jobs today. It demands broad knowledge of subject matter, curriculum, and standards; enthusiasm, a caring attitude, and a love of learning; knowledge of discipline and classroom management techniques; and a desire to make a difference in the lives of young people. With all these qualities required, it’s no wonder that it’s hard to find great teachers.

Here are some characteristics of great teachers

  • Great teachers set high expectations for all students. They expect that all students can and will achieve in their classroom, and they don’t give up on underachievers.
  • Great teachers have clear, written-out objectives. Effective teachers have lesson plans that give students a clear idea of what they will be learning, what the assignments are and what the grading policy is. Assignments have learning goals and give students ample opportunity to practice new skills. The teacher is consistent in grading and returns work in a timely manner.
  • Great teachers are prepared and organized. They are in their classrooms early and ready to teach. They present lessons in a clear and structured way. Their classrooms are organized in such a way as to minimize distractions.


  • Great teachers engage students and get them to look at issues in a variety of ways. Effective teachers use facts as a starting point, not an end point; they ask “why” questions, look at all sides and encourage students to predict what will happen next. They ask questions frequently to make sure students are following along. They try to engage the whole class, and they don’t allow a few students to dominate the class. They keep students motivated with varied, lively approaches.
  • Great teachers form strong relationships with their students and show that they care about them as people. Great teachers are warm, accessible, enthusiastic and caring. Teachers with these qualities are known to stay after school and make themselves available to students and parents who need them. They are involved in school-wide committees and activities, and they demonstrate a commitment to the school.
  • Great teachers are masters of their subject matter. They exhibit expertise in the subjects they are teaching and spend time continuing to gain new knowledge in their field. They present material in an enthusiastic manner and instill a hunger in their students to learn more on their own.
  • Great teachers communicate frequently with parents. They reach parents through conferences and frequent written reports home. They don’t hesitate to pick up the telephone to call a parent if they are concerned about a student.

What No Child Left Behind means for teacher quality

The role of the teacher became an even more significant factor in education with the passage of The No Child Left Behind law in 2002.

Under the law, elementary school teachers must have a bachelor’s degree and pass a rigorous test in core curriculum areas. Middle and high school teachers must demonstrate competency in the subject area they teach by passing a test or by completing an academic major, graduate degree or comparable course work. These requirements already apply to all new hires.

Schools are required to tell parents about the qualifications of all teachers, and they must notify parents if their child is taught for more than four weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified. Schools that do not comply risk losing federal funding.

Although the law required states to have highly qualified teachers in every core academic classroom by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, not a single state met that deadline.

The U.S. Department of Education then required states to show how they intended to fulfill the requirement. Most states satisfied the government that they were making serious efforts, but a few were told to come up with new plans.


good job!

The Legend Of Poetry…

The last repentance
evening was gloomy with the harsh reality.
ends with impingement of sin constantly felt.
constantly miserable, a cry of the heart.

careful choice.
between honesty and deceit.
between sincerity or hypocrisy.
between arrogance and generosity.
ends where it is or do not care at all?.
love of peace or ending with abject of contempt.

pride, envy, and covetousness heart.
will always be our constant companion,
until death …
whether it when? god only who knew …
regret, will be a saturation point of termination …..


Penyesalan Terakhir

malam yang telah suram dengan kenyataan pahit.
berakhir dengan pelampiasan dosa yang terus-terusan dirasa.
terus-terusan sengsara ,menjadi tangisan hati.

pilihan hati…
antara kejujuran dan kebohongan.
antara ketulusan atau kemunafikan .
antara keangkuhan dan kedermawanan.
berakhir dimanakah itu atau tak perduli sama sekali?.
cinta terhadap kedamaian ataukah berakhir dengan kenistaan yang hina.

sombong,iri hati, dan ketamakan hati .
akan selalu menjadi teman setia kita,
sampai kematian menjemput…
entah itu kapan? hanya tuhan yang tahu…
penyesalan ,akan menjadi titik jenuh pengakhiran…..


About Simple Present Tense!

The simple present tense

In English is used to describe an action that is regular, true or normal

We use the present tense:

1. For repeated or regular actions in the present time period.

  • I take the train to the office.
  • The train to Berlin leaves every hour.
  • John sleeps eight hours every night during the week.

2. For facts.

  • The President of The USA lives in The White House.
  • A dog has four legs.
  • We come from Switzerland.

3. For habits.

  • I get up early every day.
  • Carol brushes her teeth twice a day.
  • They travel to their country house every weekend.

4. For things that are always / generally true.

  • It rains a lot in winter.
  • The Queen of England lives in Buckingham Palace.
  • They speak English at work.


Verb Conjugation & Spelling

We form the present tense using the base form of the infinitive (without the TO).

In general, in the third person we add ‘S‘ in the third person.

Subject Verb The Rest of the sentence
I / you / we / they speak / learn English at home
he / she / it speaks / learns English at home

The spelling for the verb in the third person differs depending on the ending of that verb:

1. For verbs that end in -O, -CH, -SH, -SS, -X, or -Z we add -ES in the third person.

  • go – goes
  • catch – catches
  • wash – washes
  • kiss – kisses
  • fix – fixes
  • buzz – buzzes

2. For verbs that end in a consonant + Y, we remove the Y and add -IES.

  • marry – marries
  • study – studies
  • carry – carries
  • worry – worries

NOTE: For verbs that end in a vowel + Y, we just add -S.

  • play – plays
  • enjoy – enjoys
  • say – says


Negative Sentences in the Simple Present Tense

To make a negative sentence in English we normally use Don’t or Doesn’t with all verbs EXCEPT To Be and Modal verbs (can, might, should etc.).

  • Affirmative: You speak French.
    Negative: You don’t speak French.

You will see that we add don’t between the subject and the verb. We use Don’t when the subject is I, you, we or they.

  • Affirmative: He speaks German.
    Negative: He doesn’t speak German.

When the subject is he, she or it, we add doesn’t between the subject and the verb to make a negative sentence. Notice that the letter S at the end of the verb in the affirmative sentence (because it is in third person) disappears in the negative sentence. We will see the reason why below.


Negative Contractions

Don’t = Do not
Doesn’t = Does not

I don’t like meat = I do not like meat.

There is no difference in meaning though we normally use contractions in spoken English.


Word Order of Negative Sentences

The following is the word order to construct a basic negative sentence in English in the Present Tense using Don’t or Doesn’t.

Subject don’t/doesn’t Verb* The Rest of the sentence
I / you / we / they don’t have / buy
eat / like etc.
cereal for breakfast
he / she / it doesn’t

* Verb: The verb that goes here is the base form of the infinitive = The infinitive without TO before the verb. Instead of the infinitive To have it is just the have part.

Remember that the infinitive is the verb before it is conjugated (changed) and it begins with TO. For example: to have, to eat, to go, to live, to speak etc.

Examples of Negative Sentences with Don’t and Doesn’t:

  • You don’t speak Arabic.
  • John doesn’t speak Italian.
  • We don’t have time for a rest.
  • It doesn’t move.
  • They don’t want to go to the party.
  • She doesn’t like fish.


Questions in the Simple Present Tense

To make a question in English we normally use Do or Does. It has no translation in Spanish though it is essential to show we are making a question. It is normally put at the beginning of the question.

  • Affirmative: You speak English.
    Question: Do you speak English?

You will see that we add DO at the beginning of the affirmative sentence to make it a question. We use Do when the subject is I, you, we or they.

  • Affirmative: He speaks French.
    Question: Does he speak French?

When the subject is he, she or it, we add DOES at the beginning to make the affirmative sentence a question. Notice that the letter S at the end of the verb in the affirmative sentence (because it is in third person) disappears in the question. We will see the reason why below.

We DON’T use Do or Does in questions that have the verb To Be or Modal Verbs (can, must, might, should etc.)


Word Order of Questions with Do and Does

The following is the word order to construct a basic question in English using Do or Does.

Do/Does Subject Verb* The Rest of the sentence
Do I / you / we / they have / need
want etc.
a new bike?
Does he / she / it

*Verb: The verb that goes here is the base form of the infinitive = The infinitive without TO before the verb. Instead of the infinitive To have it is just the have part.

Remember that the infinitive is the verb before it is conjugated (changed) and it begins with TO. For example: to have, to eat, to go, to live, to speak etc.

Examples of Questions with Do and Does:

  • Do you need a dictionary?
  • Does Mary need a dictionary?
  • Do we have a meeting now?
  • Does it rain a lot in winter?
  • Do they want to go to the party?
  • Does he like pizza?


Short Answers with Do and Does

In questions that use do/does it is possible to give short answers to direct questions as follows:

Sample Questions Short Answer
Short Answer
Do you like chocolate? Yes, I do. No, I don’t.
Do I need a pencil? Yes, you do. No, you don’t.
Do you both like chocolate? Yes, we do. No, we don’t.
Do they like chocolate? Yes, they do. No, they don’t.
Does he like chocolate? Yes, he does. No, he doesn’t.
Does she like chocolate? Yes, she does. No, she doesn’t.
Does it have four wheels? Yes, it does. No, it doesn’t.     


Good job…